Nostr Web Client

I'm spitballing here, and I'm probably going to get some pushback on this one (when did that ever stop me?) but here goes.

Sometimes I wonder if anti-American forces such as the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, etc, have been hard at work at ideological subversion (remember Yuri Bezmenov?) Actually, I don't wonder that, I presume it. America can't be (or certainly couldn't in the past) directly attacked militarily, but can be corroded from within given how much freedom America has... that freedom can be used against them. So I don't wonder if it is happening, I wonder which ideas were seeded and encouraged by America's enemies.

Here is a list of possibles (you'll be able to guess at which ones I am expecting pushback on)

1. Convincing Americans to give the COVID vaccine to children (no other Western nation does that)

2. Convincing Americans to have sympathy for criminals to such a degree that they let them out of jail, or refuse to prosecute crimes

3. Funding the campaigns of candidates with extreme views

4. Convincing Americans to have such sympathy for migrants that they let them flow in en masse without controls, allowing in the spies and plants of the enemy.

5. Convincing Americans that red meat is good for them, so they die young of heart attacks and cancers, killing thousands per day without a shot fired.

6. Stirring up a race war

7. Stirring up extreme political division

8. Convincing Americans that Trump is worse than nuclear war, the Earth spiraling into the sun, Hillary Clinton eating babies, or whatever.

9. Convincing other Americans to support Trump with all their hearts.

10. Convincing the education system to stop educating people

11. Convincing them to redirect the efforts towards stopping climate change

12. Convincing them to be anti-war, so that America has less ability to exert power overseas

13. Convincing Americans that all vaccines are harmful, so they stop taking them and diseases spread again, killing thousands without firing a shot.

14. Convincing them not to have kids because humans are a cancer on Earth, so that their population weakens and dwindles.

OK. So I included (5) which I expect pushback on. I also included (11) and (12) which implicate me as the patsy. I try to be fair.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

liminal 🦠 1y ago

Have no doubt about it.

https://consilienceproject.org/its-a-mad-information-war/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LasVrVDpW0w

Another spitball from the linked podcast:

all the big uproar about GMO's now led to big restrictions on who can develop/produce them -> now the only organizations that can do it are the ones that can pay for thr testing and certification such as Monsanto, meaning there is little opportunity for other organizations to experiment and compete. The ponder, did Monsanto and other organizations plant these activists to spread horizontal propaganda such that they are no longer able to be competed with due to the strict regulation of GMOs?

Иван 1y ago

North Korea is not an anti-American force. It is a country under international sanctions by the UN. Any weakening of them would be an excuse to weaken anti-American rhetoric, that's all. The same is true for Russia. The only real anti-American force here is China, but we should not forget that China is the main trading partner of the United States.

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

I just listed countries that aren't on good terms with the US presently. I think they all have good reasons to be anti-American at this time.

From 1989 to 2001 under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, Russia and the US were on better terms. In 2001, Putin supported US invasion of Afghanistan to go after the Taliban, and he asked about joining NATO, but by 2002 things soured. the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty, and by 2009 with NATO involvement in Albania, Coratia, Georgia and Ukraine, Russia and the US were not friends anymore. Since then they have been in numerous proxy wars. And relations just got much worse after the special operation in Ukraine began.

Brunswick 1y ago

A cleptocracy would equally explain each of the issues you raise. Re. (5) perhaps beef isn't a panacea, but certainly most everything else with exception to fish & cabbage is poisoned to the point of endemic levels

Jeff Swann 1y ago

The dominant corp diet propaganda is anti-meat & pro-plant based everything, but this started with crazy 7th Day Adventists like J.H. Kellogg who wanted to craft a grain based diet that would destroy libido in order to "get people closer to God."

The dominant foreign policy propaganda has always been insanely aggressive & pro-"foreign aid" because thats how politicians launder money to themselves & cronies. Western administrations (led by the US) instigated a war between Putin & Ukraine, prevented the peace deal, & then sacrificed 100s of 1000s of drafted & enslaved Ukrainian men so they could line their own pockets. And the pro Israeli propaganda is equally atrocious.

It is a known socialist tactic to use "top down & bottom up pressure" to enact change. The soviets kept political dissidents in prison camps & regularly realeased the actual criminals so that they would terrorize the "free" citizens & make them clamour for more govt "protection." Every lawyer & poly sci major reads The Prince, & universities train them to think this way. It's our own ivy league American idiots doing the majority of the damage. Maybe that started with soviet demoralization efforts, but I think the ideology tends to perpetuate itself when left unchecked & the money printer always funds anything that will grow the State.

Jeff Swann 1y ago

There is also just a lot higher profit margins on plant based garbage.

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

Another great reply.

I'm aware of the SDAs. They ruined my childhood, and my mother lives in the middle of the wilderness because "God is coming soon" and it is the "end times". My great great grandmother was among them when the SDA church formed out of the William Miller disappointment (God failed to come in 1844). I was raised vegetarian, eating Loma Linda fake-meat and Worthington fake-meat (their "prosage" is actually pretty tasty).

Vegetarianism in America actually started before Kellogg and Ellen White, with reverend Sylvester Graham, William Metcalfe and William Alcott, some of whom Ellen White plagarized a lot of material from.

And yes, Graham's intent was to prevent people from having impure thoughts so they would stop masturbating, which he thought caused blindness.

BTW: Graham died at 57 from complications of opium enemas. He gave up his own advice and took liquor and meat in a desperate attempt to recover his health. Vegetarians tried to distance themself from him after that.

Anyhow, ancient history.

I'm not inclined to believe all the science about nutrition is corrupted by Seventh-Day Adventists. Sure, I think some is. But they are not crafty enough to pull off such a cover-up. There are too many studies with confirming results.

Anyhow, I'm not in the mood to argue meat-versus-plants, and I'm not trying to change anybody's mind.

Jeff Swann 1y ago

Basically all scientific research is done poorly & with an agenda. Corp profit margins determine everything about dietary recommendations. Would be happy to share the endless mountain of evidence on what is better for human health whenever you are ready to see it.

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

Ideological subversion: "...what it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American so such an extent that despite the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions..." - Yuri Bezmenov

"Basically all scientific research is done poorly & with an agenda." - AgoristView

"I think Russia succeeded." - Mike Dilger

Jeff Swann 1y ago

Yeah, the sword of truth cuts both ways, so I can play that game too.

He also talks about how the subversion starts in universities themselves - the source of most research. Despite being shown evidence that eating steak every day improves health (which ought to spur some desire to investigate if you believe it destroys health), you think it's impossible because "the 'experts' can't all be wrong." I have been eating 2-3lbs of fatty well salted steak every day for 6+ years & I weigh less than I did in high school. I was never really overweight, but my blood pressure dropped from ~130/80 to 110/70. My health issues, which all got worse when following doctor recommendations, have all gone away.

You should start actually looking into some of the scientific research & the way it is being done. Most of it is a joke.

StackSats.IO 1y ago

Remember when we figured out 15+ years of research into Alzheimers costing Billiona of dollars was founded on complete bullshit?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/alzheimers-study-controversy-what-does-it-mean-for-future-research

And that is just ONE example out of dozens

Jeff Swann 1y ago

What's always so frustrating about the people who are still mentally broken by the system, is that it usually really won't do any good to tell them anything. They seem to just "feel" that you must be wrong & I think there's probably some Stockholm Syndrome like fear preventing them from even entertaining questions.

I have a friend who seemed to only become further motivated to get boosted as questions came up. Like doing the wrong thing harder might somehow drive away the need to face the reality that her trusted authority figures weren't what she thought. She got cancer. My asking if she thought the two might be related almost made her flip out on me. Idk if there's a way to ever get through mental walls like that.

StackSats.IO 1y ago

I can’t name the phenomenon, but it boils down to the recipient not “trusting” the messenger. And I don’t mean trust in the dictionary definition sense, I more mean the weight that the recipient ascribes to the messenger.

For some that means they will default “trust” messages from authority figures, or anyone boasting credentials. For others it is the polar opposite, they’ll default distrust messages from authority figures or credentialists. And don’t be fooled into thinking this is some big grey area where people don’t know how to categorise trusted vs untrusted messengers, it’s instinctive on an individual level, almost automatic, and it takes a lot of introspection to understand one’s own biases and why one is rejecting certain messengers whilst accepting others.

We saw this a few months ago with the Nostrich who got upset at users being pseudonymous - his mental model ascribes very little trust to messages from “unknown” entities, he would lend messages more weight if the account appeared to be a “real person” identifying themselves by name and using a pfp. He couldn’t grok from the pseudonymous users that we don’t place weight on that, that we value the substance of the message far more than the messenger and are willing to sift through shit to find it, even if it’s potentially less efficient.

I don’t know Mike but I have formed a profile of him in my mind in a year on this platform. He’s more trusting of authority figures than you or I (not hard when comparing to “ancap”).

He’s also not a Bitcoiner so he won’t grok the “connection” that Bitcoiners have on this message/messenger dichotomy - Bitcoiners have a shared experience of knowing how much effort it took to study and learn things we hold to be true, how we had to unlearn things, how we were humbled by certain learnings etc. So when other Bitcoiners speak on something with authority we tend to lend them more weight because we feel a shared sense in the proof of work which is ultimately where the “cult” rhetoric comes from.

For Mike I suspect if he is ever to come around on this topic he’ll either first have to become a Bitcoiner, or he’ll have to find a different message/messenger path from the type of figures he instinctively trusts (even if he hasn’t thought about why he trusts them).

Something more like this quote from the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell

Jeff Swann 1y ago

This article is probably relevant.

In much the same way that, during covid, being told "this is a dengerous virus" while getting paid $40k per death meant there was zero incentive for doctors & hospital officals to question the covid treatment protocol that was actually killing people, there's little incentive for anyone to question a system that has rewarded them in some way. Who wants to believe their success or things they are proud of might actually be undeserved or built on a fraud of some kind?

https://www.citadel21.com/why-the-yuppie-elite-dismiss-bitcoin

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

There are all kinds of problems with science. I am a natural skeptic, despite the arguments I make here. Because my views are complex and nuanced and not hard on one side or the other. There are some good books. See Ben Goldacre on "Bad Science" and "Bad Pharma". I used to have a poster diagramming dozens of different biases. I could go on and on about the specifics, far beyond just funding bias, but I'd be preaching to the choir. You can dig into https://retractionwatch.com or consider https://brokenscience.org or any number of other efforts at fixing science.

But if all science is just thrown out, then we know nothing. Everything is just a guess. You get to pick what you wish were true. Personal experience is a poor replacement.

Let me bring that home. You have lost weight and lowered your blood pressure. But have you supressed cancer growth? Have you stopped the progression of atherosclerosis? Are you going to make it to 90? How would you know? The published science doesn't disagree with what you have discovered. Losing weight and lowering blood pressure on an all-meat diet are not in conflict with the nutritional science.

Jeff Swann 1y ago

You don't really have to throw everything out, just the stupid conclusions. If you take the same studies & data that supposedly show high LDL causes heart disease & you control for low triglycerides you find there is actually a negative correlation between high LDL & all cause mortality. LDL can be separated into different quality lipid particles, those poorly formed from conversion of sugar & carbs into fats (which form plaque), or those from healthy stable saturated animal fats. Low trigs are the best indication that most of your LDL particles are the large fluffy kind from animal fats rather than from sugars. So when you control for the thing that indicates lower carb consumption you get longer life. And it lines up with lots of other stuff, sugar rots your teeth, sugar feeds cancer - they literally dye glucose to identify cancers in scans because cancer cells consume glucose faster than everything else. So a low sugar diet reduces cancer growth. Sugar consumption causes diabetes & pancreatic issues. Steve Jobs (the sugar addicted fruitarian) died of pancreatic cancer.

There are lots of really intelligent doctors & medical professionals doing great work & studying this stuff, but much like Austrians in the economics world they are censored & attacked & treated like black sheep.

We aren't starting from zero, you just don't want to let go of the BS you think you know.

Jeff Swann 1y ago

There was also quite a bit of scientific explanation in the info graphic I included before.

On top of animal foods being more nutritious & more bioavailable, plants protect themselves by producing inflammatory toxins & anti-nutrients:

glycoalkaoids, sulforaphane, salicylates, lectins, phytates, cyanide, trypsin inhibitors, oxalates, tannins, saponins, etc

There really is no lack of availability in scientific info on this subject, just a lack of financial incentive to acknowledge & promote what is true & a lack of desire to hear the truth on the part of carb addicted & brainwashed normies.

Nobody 1y ago

Thanks I've enjoyed the conversation as someone who has gone almost completely carnivore and enjoyed some health benefits. It's nice to hlread what you had to say. I've only heard parts of it referred to before.

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

I have one other suggestion.

Let's throw out all of the science and start over. Presume it's all untrustworthy, right? Let's do our own research.

Here is a study you can do for yourself: Find all the famous nutrition researchers and famous diet promoters you can find. Group them into people promoting meat and people promoting plants. Then find out when they died. Plot these against each other. I won't suggest any particular people because I don't want to bias your results. I'd be curious to see your results.

Jeff Swann 1y ago

Shawn Baker is 7 years older than Dr Greger... Which one of them looks older & which looks healthier? But why limit it to well known people when there is already better data available?

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

One person among two, both being still alive, is far too little data. What is this better data? I'm all for doing this with better data. Please show me. I'll show you my results of the first experiment if/after you do it. Otherwise let's just move on to the better data.

Just in case you think I'm in line with Dr Greger let me adjust that notion. I think Dr Greger is an extremist, as are Dr Ornish and Dr Esselstyn. I'm not an extremist.

This comment "you just don't want to let go of the BS you think you know" isn't accurate. I am open minded. I actually want meat to be healthy - I have a flock of sheep. Just because I'm arguing for one side doesn't mean I'm not open minded. If you show me to be wrong, I will change my mind. It's just that I've looked over dozens of large studies, read 4-5 books, done literature searches, and so I've already got a lot of data in my head. So to turn the tables on that there has to be something overwhelmingly convincing, not just stories of people who look buff and lost weight (which is a strongly coorelated marker for a salesman).

Jeff Swann 1y ago

Well, that sounds like you are looking for reasons to dismiss Dr Baker rather than investigate what he has to say. Dr Ken Berry is good on the subject too. You could actually address any of the arguments I have made here rather than deflect away from them.

All of the friends & family that have done what I have suggested have lost weight & improved their health. My health has improved even after being an omnivorous paleo dieter for some years prior to carnivore. I'm not selling anything. Real world experience seems far more valuable than any sort of corruptible data from clearly biased sources. But Dave Feldman has done a lot of great collection & re-analysis of available data. Dom D'Agostino has lots of great info on cancer & ketosis. Kelly Hogan's stuff is good. Joe & Charlene Anderson have been carnivores for decades now & as far as I know they aren't selling anything.

And again, the prevailing narrative for decades has been that red meat would make people fat, raise blood pressure, & ultimately kill them. Doesn't the shift to "well you might lose weight, lower your blood pressure, & feel better, but you're still gonna die" just sound like a massive cope?

Samah 1y ago

Please do share more. 🙏🏻

I’ve been intrigued by how many bitcoiners are carnivores. It could also be that those individuals are just more verbose about their diet because it is still the most unpopular…

I periodically go down many nutrition research (as deeply flawed as it is by design and funding directions) rabbit holes. It’s rather clear what is “good” for our metabolic health (quality meats, fats, real, nutrient and polyphenol-dense foods, restricted eating windows, etc.) and what is bad for us (high-glycemic foods, precessed and fake food) but where the partiality gets confusing for me is I don’t know that, in terms of percentages of macros, there’s any one size fits all.

>70% meat? 70% fats 20% protein? A Mediterranean diet with at least half your plate full of vegetables?

So far, that seems to depend heavily on ethnic background, and the woman factor changes the percentages a lot ( for fertility etc.) and is understudied. Our individual epigenetics dictate a significant part of that. Any papers you have come across that challenge/dive into that?

Basically, provided that all the bad food is out of the picture, it’s Ciao population medicine, hello precision medicine. Your body knows best (not just general feeling and symptoms but ideally with some continuous monitoring).

Jeff Swann 1y ago

My diet is roughly 50/50 on fat & protien. 200-300g of each a day. I have seen people talk about higher fat having benefits, & I have seen some people who seem to prefer higher protein. I suspect some of that may have to do with what damage was done by prior eating practices & what is needed for recovery. And the requirements of certain lifestyles & living conditions.

There are plenty of records showing that people will eat any gabarge when there isn't enough food. I suspect plants & clay & the other things people have consumed are primarily just poverty foods. Something in your belly is better than nothing. The south in the US was historically poorer, but always cooked veggies in animal fat to make them healthier. That of course was inverted when animal based frying oils were swapped with what is basically plant based poisons. But maybe there is more to it than that. 🤷‍♂

Jeff Swann 1y ago

If you would like to join my carnivore group on Keet anyone is welcome.

Join me on Keet.io - 🥩🍖Carnivore & Low Carb🥩🍖 (invite expires on 2024/3/12 6:37 UTC)

pear://keet/yrb97yoi5ir439dp75xp64dm4ux56tbs4gbwy74ceh95thf9kizpauff43ue9iiet4muaxq5hu534rkzf7kthaerkhmhduyb5jdroap85wtophdf

Samah 1y ago

Thank you, I’m in. Excited to learn more!

adrian 1y ago

Do you presume that it’s only foreign governments doing this? I would presume the same for most other large entities that have a stake in a particular outcome. Who has more incentive to delude Americans about giving the Covid vax to children—Russia or the manufacturers.

You’re not explicitly saying this but the way you laid these out makes me wonder if you think red meat causes cancer and heart attacks and that the anti-war stance is wrong.

Jeff Swann 1y ago

Pharma corps have created a pro-vaccine religion that has allowed them to sew chronic illness (which keeps people buying treatments) into society from birth for many generations.

As a result of past lobbying efforts, they get legal immunity from any damages their products cause if they can get them added to the child vaccine schedule. So all harm gets paid for by tax payers. Thankfully it seems they have overplayed their hand & pushed the vax religion in such a way around covid that a lot of it may unravel.

There are a lot of people in the industry that have known the adjuvants in vaccines cause serious problems, that's why they have changed the metals from mercury to aluminum. It didn't do any good, but they wouldn't be trying to change things it they weren't aware of the issue. But it also hasn't stopped them from creating new vaccines & further increasing the dose of metals kids are getting. And questioning any of it has always been strictly off limits, only crazy people do that. It's possible the aluminum was just cheaper & has made problems worse.

Deleted Account 1y ago

Done ✅

I lied

Didn’t read at all. Eat me 🤣

ede3d957... 1y ago

Once you stop thinking of an outside and inside world you will recognise that we always did this to ourselves.

Cycle of life is more powerful than an "outside" enemy not recognised with in oneself ever can be.

Ifanythingthey just need to wait play it out.

waterball 1y ago

About supporting extremist views: that makes me remember of the "divide and conquer" technique that UK applied into Africa and Ottoman Empire

42N3 1y ago

> Convincing Americans to give the COVID vaccine to children (no other Western nation does that)

the German Robert Koch Institute, the federal authority for disease surveillance and prevention, recommends vaccinating kids from the age of six months if they have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease or an increased risk of infection.

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

Sad to hear that.

waterball 1y ago

LuisSP 1y ago

many actors. commie russians or chinese. Globalists on their different incarnations and their presstitutes or agents in the USA deepstate itself. Psyops is a long story. Different actors' interests may converge in some points and diverge in others.

1- the deepstate, globalists and the Chinese all pushed for it, may be with different reasons. The strongest psyop in history in focal intensity.

2,4,6,7,10,12 are in various commie playbooks, from the original communist manifest, to Alinsky, to US-CP stated goals. When the USSR files were opened in the 90's, we learned that McCarthy was mostly right. The ones he appointed as moles, agents or ideological voluntary cooperators were really so, most of them. Even Land-lease appears to have been pushed forward by USSR moles. But they all got together and won the narrative. Bezmemov, Pacepa and other intelligence defectors show various large scale pictures. Peace movement was always pushed by them. 80% of the KGB budget was misinformation, spy work was relatively minor stuff.

5 read meat is good, as the current statin-cholesterol developments show.

13 the current 70+ vaccines make no sense. Various among the old ones may be good, but since 1984 there is no incentive to make a good vaccine, as Big Pharma is no longer financially responsible for failures. 90% of disease deaths reduction is due to better sanittation and healthcare, even the basic "vaccines stoped measles deaths" is a mith.

3 is in Soros playbook. e.g. USA Districy Attorneys, cheap elections with big results.

3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,14, are the modern globalist "remake the world" playbook. China CCP bought the malthusian view of decreasing population in UN conferences with the globalists back in the XX century when both sides were reaproching.

9 is partly natural. Ok, any important issue may be used as a smoke screen to make pp forget any other issue. But... the differences between worldviews are too large, polarization is natural.

Perky 1y ago

Ever heard of this?

https://www.citizenreviewonline.org/2010/Jun/communism.html

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

No I had not. Thank you.

I was just spitballing, throwing out a thought.

Perky 1y ago

i think you're onto something